Pat Lynch is waging another lawsuit against the Southampton Town animal shelter, the town and specific shelter officials for once again barring her from volunteering at the facility.

In a 75-page lawsuit filed earlier this summer, Ms. Lynch is seeking $1 million in compensatory and another $1 million in punitive damages in an attempt to correct her damaged reputation, and to compel town officials to “do the right thing,” said her lawyer, Steven Morelli of Garden City. According to the lawsuit filed on June 24, Ms. Lynch was rejected as a volunteer after the Southampton Town Animal Shelter Foundation took over operations at the Hampton Bays center on January 1.

Philanthropist Susan Allen, who leads the Southampton Animal Shelter Foundation Inc., and Director of Personnel Susan Kelly—both of whom are listed as defendants on the litigation—on September 7 filed a motion to strike Ms. Lynch’s lawsuit, according to Jasmine Major, an intake clerk at the federal courthouse in Central Islip. The town has yet to file a response, according to Assistant Town Attorney Joseph Burke.

Ms. Lynch successfully sued Southampton Town over being prohibited from volunteering at the town-operated shelter in 2004. A court ruled that her First Amendment rights had been violated, since the ban was apparently in response to public criticism Ms. Lynch had leveled against the facility.

Mr. Morelli said the town might counter with the argument that the shelter is now privatized and therefore not required to accept her volunteer services. But Mr. Morelli contends that the shelter still receives taxpayer funding.

“They’re claiming that they can do it because it’s a private shelter,” Mr. Morelli said. “However, you have town officials that work for the so-called private shelter that’s being paid for by taxpayer money. There’s taxpayer money going into the shelter—hundreds of thousands, from what I understand—and they won’t let the lady walk the dog.”

In addition to Ms. Allen and Ms. Kelly, the lawsuit also names Animal Shelter Supervisor Donald Bambrick as defendants. Mr. Bambrick and Town Attorney Michael Sordi declined to comment on Ms. Lynch’s allegations last month. Ms. Allen and Ms. Kelly did not return calls seeking comment this week on their recent motion to dismiss.

Ms. Lynch said that when she went to the shelter to sign up as a volunteer, she was presented with an application that asked if the applicant had previously been involved in litigation with the facility—which she was. According to the lawsuit, Ms. Kelly, the director of personnel at the foundation, rejected her application after consulting with the foundation’s attorneys and deemed it was legal to do so because the facility is now considered “an independent not-for-profit corporation.”

But Ms. Lynch rejected the argument, noting that taxpayers pay for the shelter’s utilities, and that town employees, who are paid by town taxpayers, still work at the shelter.

“The crux of their case is going to be that they’re privatized,” she said. “That is a crock. You can’t be privatized and have town employees like Bambrick and his people at the desk running the place.”

Ms. Lynch also claims in the suit that about a week after she was denied volunteering, another person seeking to volunteer at the shelter was not subjected to the same application process she was.

“Ms. Lynch has been damaged again,” Mr. Morelli said. “Her reputation is being damaged. Can you imaging going to a shelter to walk dogs and be turned away? I mean, it’s bizarre. I mean, her reputation is being harmed.”

Ms. Lynch’s relationship with the shelter has been a tumultuous one. In 2004, she was rejected as a volunteer dog walker. She filed a suit in February of that year, charging that the town had violated her First Amendment rights, stating that the reason she was dropped was because of her public criticism of the shelter.

In 2007, the U.S. District Court in Central Islip ruled in Ms. Lynch’s favor, initially awarding her $251,000 in damages. That number was reduced to $50,000, by U.S. District Judge Arthur Spatt, and she was awarded an additional $71,000 to cover legal fees. The town unsuccessfully appealed the decision, which was upheld in December 2008.

The suit had NOTHING to do with her being a volunteer, it was about the "emotional distress" she suffered when she was dismissed due to her filing suit. Seriously, would you have a witness for the prosecution, working at the defendant's place of business?

I don't think so.

She was awarded damages for "emotional distress" under Section 1983, June 27, 2007. In December '08 this decision was upheld, which mystifies me, but then again, maybe our society has become a bit liberal, ...moreeh?

""“Her reputation is being damaged. Can you imaging going to a shelter to walk dogs and be turned away? I mean, it’s bizarre. I mean, her reputation is being harmed.” Mr. Morelli said. ""

NOTE TO MR MORELLI: I think it's pretty safe to say that she does a good job of damaging her own reputation. Why doesn't this woman stop wasting tax payer money? They don't want her there because she's really hard to deal with. Go volunteer for ARF instead...unless they don't want you there either.

Susan is a PHILANTHROPIST. I think you may be confusing her with some celebutante, or someone of such nature.

Someone who HIDES behind the First Amendment, has no right invoking it. She (Pat) not only made a public spectacle of herself with editorials, radio, and other instruments of the Fourth Estate, she became "emotionally distressed" when those same rights and attributes backfired on her. Obviously she did not intelligently anticipate the consequences of her actions (filing an order ...moreto show cause for an injunction) very well. That much is demonstrated in the appeals court documentation of her testimony.

Of course, that "distress" the TOWN caused HER by her dismissal (not the Fourth Estate, who excercised their 1st Amendment rights to publicly report it), entitled her to a cash award of at least $251,000 dollars, of which about 70k were legal fees in 2007. She was an instrument of a legal proceeding AGAINST the shelter. How could ANYONE reasonably expect her to continue in a volunteer capacity, when anything she perceives, or observes is admissible as testimony in court? They had EVERY RIGHT to dismiss her. PERIOD.

Wake up, man, and smell the coffee...

Sep 23, 10 11:40 PM appended by Mr. Z

And, by the way, nothing in my comment remotely resembles the definition of slander.

Lynch stop waisting tax payer money so the animals can be taken care of. Every dollar you take is 1 less dollar for the shelter. You're hurting the very cause you so desperiately want to help. Use your head and think . You are embarrassing yourself and destroying your own reputation. Be an adult and walk away with dignity.

Town government has a long history of crapping on town employees who speak up. Your chances of promotion go out the window, you're shunted off into meaningless or miserable work, ignored and subtlety mistreated with the intention of making you resign (because they can't fire you without due cause).

They did the same thing to Lynch once, and probably did it to her again. It is a persistent pattern of bureaucratic behavior. She should have learned her lesson and found something else to do. ...moreNow she's just wasting taxpayer money, and even if she wins it won't change the system or the mentality of the people who run it.

If you know Pat Lynch, you will better understand why she was banned from the shelter. I wouldn't want her in my home. She is a trouble maker who thrives on stirring up problems between people. This law suit isn't about "access" to the shelter, it's about "revenge" and "making money at the taxpayer's expense". She won the first law suit and was handsomely PAID BY TAXPAYERS and now she's out to put her hand in our pocket once again. Any wonder why they won't let her near innocent little animals ...morewho seek affection and love. Pat Lynch has made a name for herself. She has no reason to blame it upon others and PROFIT in the process. Money that would have otherwise been used to help the Animal Shelter or reduce the indebtedness of our town is now being spend to defend another nuisance lawsuit from Pat Lynch. She does not have any community spirit. It's all about her and she brought it on herself. If you know her, you should tell her, as she is an attention seeker. Perhaps a little pressure from the community will do her some good.

I once stood behind an elderly couple at what was then the Genovese drug store in Hampton Bays. They seemingly did everything to extend the checking out process (adding "last minute" items repeatedly and then having to be shown that the updated total was correct). The cashier did everything they asked without comment but when I caught her eye, she looked at the ceiling. When they were f-i-n-a-l-l-y finished I asked her what that was all about. She said that they went through the same routine ...moreevery time they shopped there. I later saw them doing the same routine at King Kullen. There is an egoistical syndrome wherein attention, good or bad, is the goal.

All I can think about is what all this wasted money could do for the very animals this woman claims she cares about. It is clear her only goal is to make money for herself through ridiculous lawsuits. What a sad existence. No wonder this shelter wants nothing to do with her. From what I hear, Ms. Allen is doing a wonderful job. She should not have to deal with this crap.

Pat Lynch is, was and seemingly will always be trouble. She needs attention and she is using the legal system to get it. For goodness sake, all the money she is paying to harm the reputation of good and decent people who take care of animals is a violation of human rights. Stop this foolishness ... you were rejected as a volunteer because you want to do more than volunteer ... you want to dictate policy and have everything YOUR way. It's not like that. So, sit, stay and shut up.

You seem to have a personal vendetta against Ms.Lynch, rather than a good argument. Bringing personal baggage into this type of situation almost always clouds the water. I suggest taking a deep breath, clearing your head and examing the real issues at hand. Not just the obviously negative bad oppinion you have towards Ms. Lynch. Have a good weekend. Get off the computer abnd get some fresh air.

em2888 No one here has a vendetta against Pat Lynch. She is a trouble maker, and it is she that has a vendetta. This is what she does (sues) when she does not get her way, trying to micro manage the shelter operation and as Nancy Q stated she tried to dictate policy.Pat Lynch has only has herself to blame for all the negative comments. Read her commens above. The woman as serious anger issues.Now maybe you should get some fresh air.

BTW it had to Pat Lynch herself who insisted ...morethat the press do this article. Thats what she does she stirs the pot trying to give the SH Animal Shelter a bad name.This foundation has done nothing but good things for the animals.

I am not sure who you believe these "well organized buddies" are. I do no know anyone at the shelter nor do I know Ms. Lynch. I do know that I am sick of reading her unending letters to the editor and her law suits. As someone pointed out, it does not in anyway help the animals she supposedly champions.

Jean Lynch seems to have become a radical canine extremist who even dog lovers won't follow because her views are too extreme. I think she should be allowed to volunteer and her opinions given the consideration they deserve. I hate the idea of her getting another cent of taxpayers money through lawsuits. Perhaps if the other volunteers treat her likes the stuff they pick up while walking dogs, she will get the message. I fear they are probably too polite to do that.

How to attain finacial security when you are unemployable by Pat Laynch:1)Pretend to be a caring,kind (elderly) animal activist to get your foot in the door2) Can't keep up act for long and true personality comes out becoming impossible to be around3)When asked nicley to leave, make false allegations against those actually rescuing and providing care4)Force municipality to ban you when you become too much of a liability5)Sue for as much as possible6) DO NOT GIVE ANY ...moreOF YOUR SETTLEMENT MONEY BACK TO THE ANIMALS! (after all if you helped out financially there would be no need for the creation of a foundation with deeper pockets to take over- then who would you sue?)7) Repeat

Sep 19, 10 2:04 PM appended by dogtired

How much juice does the lyncher have with you guys. First you print a picture of her from many years ago to make her appear more youthful - then you remove the article immediately after my stinging yet accurate comments. She scares the crap out of you doesn't she. Let me guess - she threatened to sue?

Fascinating how Lynch has an unending forum to spew her venom through the SH Press, cries 1st ammendment violation when she is called on her fabricated stories. But let a commenter expose her or her new best friend george (Simpson -google it to better understand HIS agenda) and those comments get removed.

Another expensive lawsuit the Town will definitely lose. How can prior litigation against the Town serve as a basis to bar her from volunteering? This smacks of government intimidation of the worst kind. The Town's message is clear: Don't sue us, because if you do, we're going to punish you. It's particularly egregious in this instance, since Lynch WON her earlier suit (both a jury and appeals court agreed with her). And while it may be the shelter denying her application, I predict the Town ...morewill be on the hook as well because of its partial funding of the shelter.

I don't know Pat Lynch, don't care what her motives are, and certainly am not defending her. Dislike her all you want, and feel free to criticize the result in her earlier suit, but don't for a second think that the message the Town-funded shelter is sending is legitimate. As long as there's Town funding, the shelter is going to have to let her volunteer, but it looks like taxpayers will be forced to continue to foot the bill (and Lynch's bill - she'll get her attorney fees in the suit as well) for their ignorance.

Was any reason given for rejecting her application as a volunteer??? I'll say this much ... if you are unfortunate enough to be a dog in need, you couldn't ask for a stonger advocate than Pat. She will go to blows with ANYONE when it comes to helping or saving a dog... particularly life or death situations. Some people say they love animals. But when it comes to showing support, are they willing to give of themselves? Will they adopt? foster? volunteer? donate? even make a phone call? I've ...morebeen active in animal rescue for five years and with all the need that exists ... no one who wants to help should be turned away. Pat can do tremendous good. She will donate her time - sit in a greeting room with a dog - promote them to visitors and try to find a home. Isn't that what matters? She can be difficult, no question. But make no mistake - her passion is unparalleled. Put your personal feelings aside and put the homeless, unwanted pets first. The town should settle ... save themselves time and money ... and let her walk a dog! ... jeez...

When is the last time someone "burned" you most egregiously, and you welcomed them back with open arms?

Sep 22, 10 10:49 PM appended by Mr. Z

"On February 27, 2004, after the plaintiff filed an order to show cause in support of
a request for an injunction to stop the euthanasia policy, she was approached by two or three uniformed Town Code Enforcement Officers, was directed to leave, and she was immediately escorted out of the Animal Shelter."

Hey sue why cant pat go volunteer somewhere else?did she donate any of that money from her lawsuit back to animals? come on get real she is asue happy person who think she is more important to the animals then the shelters themselves

"On February 27, 2004, after the plaintiff filed an order to show cause in support of a request for an injunction to stop the euthanasia policy, she was approached by two or three uniformed Town Code Enforcement Officers, was directed to leave, and she was immediately escorted out of the Animal Shelter."

I am somewhat involved in NYC rescue and this summer I was faced with the tough situation of re-homing a challenging dog that happened to physically be in the Hamptons. Through friends of friends of friends, I was connected with Pat Lynch. Pat was INCREDIBLY helpful to me in this difficult situation, including networking on the dog's behalf, and connecting me with a reputable trainer who gave the dog a behavioral assessment free-of-charge. She went above-and-beyond to help me in the rescue and ...morere-homing of this pup, and was incredibly thoughtful and gracious in the process. Her selfless advocacy of animals, their safety and care was incredibly apparent.

Honestly, I was so grateful to have Pat's help. So, in this case, I'd have to say that i\t's SH--and, sadly, their animals'--LOSS not to have Pat be a part of SH's shelter and animal efforts...

Look, this is how it works ... you're ALLOWED to openly criticize your local government. And you CANNOT be banned from a public building (or volunteering) for doing so (even if she was wrong - and I'm not saying she was). A court of law ruled in Pat's favor, upholding her civil rights.Do you really think that the town can ban her now because she sued them in the past?In any case .. that is a secondary argument ... as I stated before ... put the dogs first. They don't care who walks them ...more- they're just glad to be out.

All valid points- however city rescuer - she helped and then left. Didn't stick around to poison the atmosphere with her toxic personality. Ms. Hansen you are a lovely person and I get what you're saying - but Lynch negatively impacts everyone else around her. If she could be as pleasant to everyone as she is to a dog being walked, her help might be welcomed. No one wants to bear the brunt of the hostility that goes along with the constant threat of lawsuits. I've said it before- but it bears ...morerepeating: Lynch, if this is indeed your passion and not just a ploy to make some kind of a name for yourself (and make easy money) - by all means take your settlement money and open your very own rescue foundation. You can call all the shots and open yourself to lawsuits should some power-hungry know-it-all activist want to "volunteer" and put you at risk.

The fact remains, she cannot file suit against the shelter, and as the plaintiff, reasonably expect to continue in her volunteer position. Not only is expecting to do so unreasonable by due process, but she is the KEY witness for the plaintiff. She CANNOT be present at the shelter while lis pendens in existence. PERIOD.

Her dismissal was not unwarranted, nor unexpected to anyone but her. How could you NOT see that coming a mile away once the town was served, unless you are maybe a moron? ...more She hides behind the First Amendment when it suits her, and when the Fourth Estate does not function in her favor, she cries foul, and claims "emotional distress". Her distress was of her own doing, by her fame, and her actions (editorials, lawsuit, etc.). When the newshounds, who do watch court filings, and listen to the police scanner, found out, they had a field day with the story. Mind you, her peers in the Fourth Estate were responsible for the publicity surrounding the case. It's news, after all.

She made her own bed, and unfortunately could not lay in it, so she cried foul, and got paid for it. If you can't take the heat, don't set the fire in the oven.

What if a female Town employee was wrongly passed up for promotion based on her gender or her race? By your logic, if she sued the Town and won, the Town would then be justified in firing her and barring her from getting another job with the Town (or with a Town-funded entity), solely based on her earlier suit. That's wrong.

People can hate on Pat Lynch all they want, but she's going to win this suit too and enjoy another taxpayer-funded payday.

You're not a whistleblower if you're suing to protect your own rights (as it the employee in my example) - a whistleblower exposes wrongdoing that affects others.

Lynch is a citizen with a right to free speech (as the court in the earlier suit recognized), and with a right to not be discriminated against at a town-funded entity (as this court will eventually find). If you want to avoid your tax dollars going into her and her attorney's pocket, either cut Town funding or let her volunteer.

George above is a friend of Pat Lynch his name is George Simpson and is the very person that wrote a letter to the editor a week or 2 ago defending Ms. Lynch.

Sue Hansen was associated with RSVP and very likely another friend of Pat Lynch. Sue would have liked to have the opportunity to run the shelter. Any negative comments made by Sue Hansen about the shelter are just sour grapes on her part. Sue also wrote a letter to the editor for the Sept 30 edition.

George who's comments ...moreare a SET UP????? Get real with your pack of lies.

Sep 29, 10 7:52 PM appended by reg rep

Correction: Sue Hansen is/was a volunteer with RSVP she would have liked to see RSVP's bid accepted in running the shelter. See SH press article Oct 19, 2009.
Also, if you read Ms. Lynch's letter to the editor this week (Sept 30) it is she who is making herself sound like a crazy person and distroying her good name. That's if she has a good name.

If Pat Lynch really cared about the animals she is so eager to walk she would take the money shes wasting on her lawyers and donate to save these poor abandoned souls stuck in the shelter desperately waiting to be adopted. Maybe she should mull over that thought while she enjoys her Lobster Dinner this evening. Obviously the Southampton Animal Shelter cares deeply about the welfare and safety of their animals by denying Pat Lynch the right to walk a dog. Get out of town Pat Lynch .... We don't ...moreneed or want you here!!!!!!!!!